Trouble on the horizon for health care efforts?

By Jennifer J. Foster

Harry Reid’s SURPRISE!! GOTCHA, SEN. SNOWE!!/maybe-you-can-opt-out public option plan is getting all the attention, but trouble of a different kind is brewing on the health care front.

I have been talking here on a regular basis about the concerns millions of Americans have about the role abortion will play in any government-funded health care option. Liberals, spokespeople for abortion rights groups and even President Obama’s own staff insist that their concerns—that taxpayer money could end up paying for abortions for women covered under the government option—are unfounded.

As I have said on many occasions, their concerns are easy enough to assuage. Just put language into the bill that specifically forbids such funding.

It hasn’t happened.

While Reid runs around the Senate trying to hold his fingers in the dam of the propects of a near-certain filibuster against his opt-out plan, on the House side, Nancy Pelosi has a lot of work to do to line up passage for the plan. Speculation abounded over the weekend that Pelosi was just a few votes shy of having enough.

When it comes down to it, Pelosi will likely have a harder time keeping her caucus together than Reid will. Conventional wisdom is that this is because of the concerns conservative Democrats have with the public option and the program’s cost.

That’s true. But there is more.

From The Hill:

Approximately 40 House Democrats are prepared to block healthcare reform legislation from coming to the floor should the bill include federal subsidies for abortions, said Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) Friday ...

The group of 40 would join House Republicans in voting against procedural measure that would draft rules for debating the bill on the House floor. Passage of the measure is necessary for the House to hold a floor vote.

“There’s about 40 like-minded Democrats like myself—we’ll try to take down the rule,“ Stupak said. “If all 40 of us vote in a bloc against the rule—because we think the Republicans will join us—we can defeat the rule. The magic number is 218. If we can have 218 votes against the rule, we win.”

With 177 Republicans in the House, Stupak would need at least 41 Democrats to cross the aisle and vote against the rule. Stupak’s amendment was originally defeated by the House Energy and Commerce Committee during mark-up.

Notice that Stupak says “about 40 like-minded Democrats” (emphasis mine). If this comes to a vote, it’s going to come down to who’s on the floor while the board is open. Everyone knows this, so Stupak is holding his cards close to the vest.

(Incidentally, I wonder if Alabama’s own Bobby Bright and Parker Griffith are among that 40. Staffers for them, let’s hear from you on this.)

So what has these Democrats upset enough to devise a plan to scuttle the entire bill?

Under language in the Energy and Commerce proposal, one health plan in each health care “exchange” that sells public health insurance must provide coverage for abortion. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is currently in the process of merging the House’s three health bills ...

SIDEBAR: Did you get that? “MUST PROVIDE COVERAGE for abortion.“ Someone please point this out to Melody Barnes so she can be as informed as the rest of us. END SIDEBAR

Stupak, who is conservative on social issues, told CNS News that he has organized the voting bloc to support his amendment that would strip the abortion provisions from the legislation. House Rules Committee chairwoman Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.), according to Stupak, said that there is “no way” her panel would provide a vote for his amendment.

Hmm. Louise Slaughter, what is more important to you: Health care reform, or protecting one of the two most divisive components at the expense of that reform?

Congressmen and women, if you are out there, strip the language. Don’t sacrifice—or risk sacrificing—whatever progress can be made on reform on the altar of divisive ideology.

President Obama wants us to find consensus on this issue. Forcing mandated abortion coverage down the throats of pro-life Americans this way is not, presumably, what he had in mind.

And for that matter, President Obama, where are you on this? Are you for really for consensus? This would be a good time to put those words into action.

Late word yesterday was that House Democrats had reached agreement on a $894 billion plan that includes the public option. But in reporting the deal (and a press conference in the offing this morning), the Associated Press noted:

Democratic leaders still faced disputes over prohibiting taxpayer money for abortions and health care for illegal immigrants, issues they hoped to resolve after the bill’s unveiling.

It’s unclear to me how House Democrats could reach a deal if the issue that has 40-some of them ready to block the bill remains unresolved.

On another note, this effort by pro-life Democrats highlights their growing influence in Washington. I have told you before about Democrats for Life. Yes, they are out there. The national Democratic Party doesn’t like to acknowledge them, but they are there.

And they know the process.

We have talked before about how the Democrats’ expanded majority in Congress is built on moderate and conservative Democrats who beat incumbent Republicans or won open seats being vacated by GOP members (see Bright and Griffith, above). That construction has consequences: The ballooning deficit is one of them; this fissure over abortion is another.

That’s some of why the midterms are going to be more interesting and fun to watch than most people think.

See also:

“Abortion issue still clouding health care bill,“ blog post from Sept. 29